Bishop Barron The Synod "is just absurd"

Bishop Barron has released a very well written and concise account of his experience with the synod. You can read the document here: www.wordonfire.org/articles/b...
Read a bit more about Catholic Action here catholicsinaction.org/camovem...
Lumen Gentium is available here: www.vatican.va/archive/hist_c...
Pope Paul VI's Evangelli Nuntiandi here www.vatican.va/content/paul-v...
I am 1/3rd of Catholic Unscripted, please subscribe to our channel here ‪@catholicunscripted‬ and you can support our work in evangelisation and education on our website here: www.catholicunscripted.com/ scroll down until you see "Support Our Cause"
Please do like this video and share!

[@jojop7773]

Thank you for this information. I am glad to hear what Bishop Barron thinks about the synod. I have had my doubts about him but this is very encouraging. Thanks again!

[@dermotdowdall3501]

Well said, totally agree, i had been concerned about his views on the reality of hell for example & i doubted if he was going to be at all helpful but in fairness he has done his job here and it is a relief. Good work Jojo

[@greyhoundmama2062]

I have sensed a real change in Bishop Barron. Conversion is frequently a process over time for many of us.

[@sheila7809]

Thank you for your insight into what's going on in the Church & w synod.

[@sheila7809]

Oops...And esp w Bsp Barron. 🙂

[@bthemedia]

@@greyhoundmama2062hopefully Bishop Barron continues to grow and evolve in his orthodoxy… he is well aware of Marxism and should be cognizant of these Modernist heresies that continue to envelope and infiltrate the church!

[@user-ll9wh4jt2k]

When I converted in 1979, a parishioner told me that our parish used to be more lively before Vatican II because everyone belonged to a " sodality" and had a purpose in living and communicating the faith as a lay Catholic.

[@RedRose-il8xj]

Strange to me that Jesus definition of LOVE wasn't mentioned - John 14:21 "He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who LOVES ME; and he who LOVES ME will be loved by My Father and I will love him and manifest Myself to him." (RSV 2nd CE) If the focus of the Synod was on loving God with all our hearts, mind, soul and strength and on Jesus definition of love, there would be no reason to discuss the promotion, acceptance of sexual behaviors/lgbt sin. The Catholic Church exists to bring the Light of Christ to the world, not that the world should transform the Church into the pit of hell.

[@eugene2596]

Mark, I am an American Catholic man who had a free hour before the family gathering here this Thanksgiving Day morning. I just listened to your commentary and I have to say I am very grateful to you. I didn’t know of Bishop Barron’s reflection on the Synod. As you said he articulately uses the beautiful document of Vatican II on the Laity to show the proper approach to inclusion of the laity- not in running after clerical orders but in being the leaven of Christ in society. Fantastic show Mark. The Church in England is blessed to have you!🙏

[@wayneowens4761]

Thank you to Bishop Baron, what bravery he demonstrated in his opinion and clearly stating his views. Who cares how or why there are homosexuals, but tell us, is it sin. Pretty clear, the Bible condems the act. Maybe we should look into murder similarly, using science to better our understanding of it and therefore possibly change the teaching of the Church. Where does it end unless the Pope clearly addresses this as sin or not. Pray for Pope Frances.

[@marilynmelzian7370]

I get the sense that when people say they want to be heard, what they really mean is, “I want you to do what I tell you.” Or they want validation or more power. The problem is when you seek validation or affirmation, or when you seek power, there is never enough.

[@carlasoto6760]

My whole support to Bishop Strickland and Barron for keeping up the true teachings of Christ

[@j.knight9335]

They're both false ecumenists. Nowhere near Catholicism.

[@brendanbutler1238]

Thankyou Mark, it's encouraging to see that Bishop Barron has got his head screwed on.

[@marklambert5232]

You're most welcome and thanks for watching!

[@Westyrulz]

Cardinal Pell warned us !!

[@aseeker2109]

Thank you Dr Lambert for again bringing us your commentary on, as you note a very important document in this instance, the Synod on Synodality experience of Bishop Baron. I appreciate very much you giving us the benefit of your learning and faith. I think Bishop Baron in upholding the teaching of Pope St John Paul II, completely refutes the basis of the notions expressed in the paradigm shift called for in 'doing' theology in the recently published Motu Proprio Ad theologiam promovendam.

[@abart2056]

Thank you so much for sharing Bishop Barron's stance on this Synod which I have to say I've been in the dark about. I only recently became aware of what is happening and many other catholics don't know about this. Even my own catholic family members still support our Pope even with this absurdity! Intellectuals within my family can't see what I can. I'm grateful to God for the Grace of understanding for myself and others like me. Again thank you for this! God bless you and all your efforts to enlighten other people especially fellow Catholics! 🙏

[@user-ll9wh4jt2k]

Archbishop Anthony Fisher OP of Australia has also criticized the Synod, especially its methodology which he says failed badly. I know him. He is a well trained moral theologian and very cautious and diplomatic.

[@marklambert5232]

Many thanks for this tip - I will investigate!

[@jolindo6724]

Am glad to hear this

[@Ebergerud]

Barron is a junior bishop and no doubt has ambition - we should hope he moves up the ladder. But that means he cannot cross Francis in any serious way - look what happened to Strickland. Barron was a protege of Cardinal George of Chicago and, rumor has it, can't stand Cupich: let's hope that's true. Anyway, he has a good mind, a good heart, and we must cut him a lot of slack.

[@marklambert5232]

I think his huge media presence gives him weight above his episcopal station. If Francis goes against Barron, he goes against his huge audience as well!

[@reginapontes5672]

Personally I think Bishop Barron positioned himself very wisely on social media and Word on Fire. Jorge can't pull the same thing with Barron then they did with Strickland.

[@reginapontes5672]

​@@marklambert5232exactly!

[@reginapontes5672]

Well done Mark! Thank you for this and Catholic Unscripted! I'm a new fan!!! and subscribed!

[@WT-Sherman]

These are important statements from a Bishop who is not exactly a bomb throwing right-wing conservative. Let’s pray he will continue to speak up in the coming year.

[@tonny-leonard]

Thank you for pointing to Bishop Baron's take on the synod. I was quite worry on account of some of his statements in the past, but lately he seems to recover. At a slow pace, but better later than never.

[@mikeryan3701]

I wonder who came up with the clickbait headline: Bishop Barron - the Synod 'is just absurd’? What Bishop Barron actually wrote was: “To say that this multilayered, philosophically informed, theologically dense system is incapable of handling the subtleties of human sexuality is just absurd.” He didn’t say that the Synod was absurd. He was criticising the view that the Church’s views on sexual morality can be determined by science.

[@janewalton2901]

Yes clickbait is the correct terminology.

[@3AMDG3]

Well done, Mark. Thanks for this.

[@marklambert5232]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@LeonieMart]

Thankyou Mark. This has been such a help in discerning the signs of the times. Praying and trusting in the Holy Spirit 🙏🏻

[@user-oj7te5ph6o]

A 20th century Catholic Action figure was Frederick Kinsman, a US Episcopalian bishop who resigned his see and converted to Catholicism. He wrote extensively on his conversion and trhe position of Catholicism in the US.

[@RestoreJustice675]

Your point being???

[@bthemedia]

Very much appreciate your commentary and thank you for sharing your voice in defending and spreading the authentic Catholic faith!

[@robertkravchuk3080]

Excellent, Mark. Thank you. God Bless from Indiana, USA. -Bob

[@francisdeary4572]

Thanks Mark, very informative and I agree with you - we must not leave the church - we must stay and fight for what is right! We must support the bishops who are doing right, The Baron's and Stricklands.

[@paulyosef7550]

This is the first time I ever heard Barron say anything relevant and orthodox. there might be hope.

[@crushtheserpent]

Wow. You actually managed to say that about the man who has probably brought more people into the Catholic faith than anyone alive. 🤔

[@RestoreJustice675]

​@@crushtheserpentI too have had questions about Bishop Barron. And it seems as if others in their comments have their questions too.

[@victorbaltov1808]

@@crushtheserpent He has publicly stated two mortal heresies on the Rubin Report: Jesus is the "privileged" way to salvation [not the only way] and there is a reasonable hope that "all" souls go to Heaven [at least 98%].

[@crushtheserpent]

@@victorbaltov1808 The idea that non-Catholics may be saved goes back to before Vatican II. Pope Pius XII dealt with it in regards to Feeneyism. "Hoping" all with be saved is very different from 'claiming' all will be saved. Don't we pray in our Rosary "and lead all souls to heaven"? Origen of Alexandria was a universalist (which Barron is most certainly not) and he is held in high esteem by the church and quoted often. I'm not a theologian but I would question your claim of "mortal heresy". And I'm not defending Barron's point of view. Just pointing out it's not heretical and is a minor issue in regards to all the good work he has done.

[@tonywallens217]

It’s almost as if you haven’t heard a word the Bishop has said for the last almost 20 years until now. Lol this is not a good comment

[@joncardenas3203]

I can't say it enough your videos are great!!

[@michaelciccone2194]

Bishop Baron is still subjected to the Novus ORDO RCC.

[@RestoreJustice675]

"The church is to announce the Gospel to everyone" (Pope Francis : Per the document) You are Right Pope Francis. Proclaim the Gospel, not change the Gospel. Repentance from sin is always a requirement of God, the Gospel, and His Church.

[@estebanmoeller]

First time on your channel 👋 are all your vids this good?

[@marklambert5232]

I certainly hope so - I would go as far as saying they are better! Thank you for watching!

[@gilcostello3316]

Prayer. Yes. That IS the answer. The ONLY answer. Which begs a question: How do we pray all the time? That would be the ONLY ground of absolute stability, even when suffering 24/7 from a deep darkness throughout one’s adult life, what most would crumble into a severely disabling depression from. But a woman did suffer that deep darkness 24/7 who prayed all the time in HOW SHE LIVED HER LIFE, not found solely in uttering words of prayer (what St. Teresa of Lisieux first instructed us on-The Little Way, Prayer in Motion, Living the Prayer): St. Mother Teresa of Calcutta. And then there is the film by Liliana Cavani, Francesco, where she refused to polish St. Francis into an acceptable presence for our pious eyes, but instead reveals step by step how a human being enters into praying all the time, Living a Prayer, a piecemeal process that one should never bother oneself with how long it will take before one arrives where Teresa and Francis arrived at. The only focus required is in doing the Father’s will in every moment in opposition to our own pious, willful ways that help us best in regarding ourselves with high self-esteem, Satan’s Way, where our Lord and our Father’s will both disappear. And Pope Francis understands this better than any Pope during my 76 years, how necessary it is to restore Jesus’ version of what the Church’s Christian Brotherhood actually is, how Jesus intended it, and what was dismantled many hundreds of years ago by the clerical class in its decision to sever the entire Laity from the Church’s discernment process, which called for Laity to be severed from the Christian Brotherhood itself, made evident in saintly Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger’s concise 1961, 92 page book, The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood, where he makes clear the entire clerical class CHOSE to severe itself from the Laity by declaring the Church’s Eucharistic Christian Brotherhood null and void for Laity, that the Brotherhood would from now on consist only of clerics, Laity denied any part in the Church’s discernment process, where the sinister clerical class as we know it today was first formed (its sinister essence made clear in how this Brotherhood protected its own, those priests in service to Baal, over the protection of the lives of the innocent ones and their parents and extended family members, an evil indifference having its origin in the clerical class declaring Laity invisible). This radical exclusion of Laity from the Church’s Christian Brotherhood immediately killed off the Church’s Royal Priesthood, a priesthood focused on preparing every Christan to Go Out as Jesus insisted, a priesthood made up of the trinitarian preparatory process of Assembly Life, Mystagogy & Spiritual Direction, all cancelled with the death of the Royal Priesthood-for so long now, even clerics have no clue as to its history. But the sinister sickness of the “clerical camaraderie” that holds the clerical class togetjher like spiritual super-glue, sustaining their severedness from Laity, made evident in how EVERY cleric participated in protecting and advancing their brothers who were obviously committed to serving Baal. Yes, those men were more precious to every member of the clerical class than the little children sacrificed on Baal’s Altar. THAT’S the sinister sickness of this clerical comarderie that fully suppressd the missions of Laity for hundreds of years, preventing them from arriving in sainthood by fulfilling the missions assigned to them. But our Pastors kept convvimciomg us Laity to bury our talents in our back yards and wait on our Lord’s return. THAT IS THE TRAGEDY caused by the Cancellation of Lay Missons, what only Pope Francis is addressing. We must be stalwart in not only praying words for our Holy Father, but also LIVING A PRAYER for him by olenly supporting his mission, the most vital mission today and for the rest of this millenium. Pope Francis is our Prophetic Pope for this new millennium. Better start paying attention if you love the Church and her Mission. He is in his own way with his Synod on Synodality fighting a lonely battle to rid the Church of the infestation of a sinister clerical camaraderie that insists on keeping Laity locked out. Think about it: if Laity had been allowed to participate in the discernment process at every Parish regarding priests sexually molesting Laity’s children, no way would those Laity have approved the clerical desire to protect those men as a priority over protecting the innocent ones by transferring their brothers, doing whatever it took to protect them and their assigned missions from Baal.

[@andrewemalone]

Search for Rosary for a Bishop and pray a rosary for both the good and bad Bishops. Both are brothers in faith no matter how misguided. Thank you for your excellent work, Mr. Lambert.

[@judycallaghan4889]

Good job Bishop Barron!

[@KatMar-sb8kn]

Mark, your title is misleading. The Bishop used that for a specific language. This type of stuff is going to get the good Bishop in trouble. Please change to a title that is not click-bait.

[@autumnangel3001]

I’m so glad you question where and when people from these groups have been excluded! I’ve never seen it happen…..I think these people go along feeling defensive and already assuming they’ll be judged so they act accordingly. If looking, one can find offence in anything.

[@gtaylor178]

These people are just useful idiots - they are being used by the pushers of this sinister agenda to have their way. This is not of God at all.

[@bethanyubelhor8733]

Eternal victim hood. Rather than seeing the sacrifice of Jesus as the lamb of God. Penance and reparations, not self pity. God so loved the world, not our sin and willfulness.

[@rosarosario1375]

Praying for the church unity in worship and in morals... pope Francis acts on returning to Traditional way of celebrating the mass.

[@snookieg2409]

Honest question: does it seem like Bishop Barron has become more conservative and traditionally mined since he left California? I have seen 3 or 4 videos in just the last month where he is saying things I never, ever, thought I would hear him say. In the most recent video (can't remember the topic) where he took a very conservative position that was contrary to Pope Francis. I truly believe that his move from LA was Divine Intervention!

[@marygunning5121]

During the first few minutes of your talk, you seem to say Bishop Barron is being" sarcastic here" as you review his comments. A saying springs to my mind, "Point the figure and three others are pointing back at you".

[@JoshBerkley530]

Dear Mark, the title of your video implies that Bishop Barron’s summary of the whole Synod is that it was “absurd”. Would you agree that is a pretty deceptive title?

[@michaelciccone2194]

RCC IS becoming like the Episcopal Church USA each day. The Episcopal USA BISHOPS must be extremely happy.

[@5150show]

Thank you

[@chissstardestroyer]

I'm not saying that the seat's empty, but more importantly that due to these: the seat of the see of Peter doesn't and never has existed, and more critically: the holy spirit is a devil due to Him guiding the faithful into the embrace of mortal sin!

[@brendanbutler1238]

We need to build Jerusalem in England's green and pleasant land, not Havana.

[@Joemantler]

You seemed to miss the KEY part in the statement about "exclusion". It said "excluded from the tables where the decisions are taken." But have YOU ever been "included at the tables where the decisions are taken" in the Church?? Only someone who DEFINES people by their accidental attributes would think you or I have been so included! God does not invite us to join Him in Heaven "at the tables where decisions are taken!" Should we merit Heaven, we will be singing "Holy, Holy, Holy"!

[@marklambert5232]

I'm not sure of the point you're making here if I am honest?

[@Joemantler]

Why should laymen of any stripe feel excluded from the decision making of the Church? It's not our Role. I'm sure the likes of Martin Luther and Hanry VIII felt excluded from the decision making process in Rome, too,

[@Jimboken1]

Barron is certainly very effective and is a charismatic bishop who has credibility with younger people.And he knows how to construct arguments and debate. He runs hot and cold on issues but then he has standing in both liberal and conservative camps. It does rather feel that he has staked a contra-Francis position at the sunset of this pontificate. I'd love to have a sense of the mood of the cardinals about where to go after Francis. Do the majority see it's been disastrous? We do so desperately need to right the ship.

[@RestoreJustice675]

I suspect Francis has stacked the deck against the ship being righted, by his selection of Cardinals. Thank God America has a constitution, the Democrats would have stacked the supreme court by increasing the number of Supreme Court judges. Where as Pope Francis is not. Thus his reign of sloppy agape everyone without the call to repentance and conversion will continue. And just like in America, against the will of it's people.

[@ShirleyAnnPetrillo-oj7sc]

Ask the 21 newly appointed Cardinals.

[@Jimboken1]

@@ShirleyAnnPetrillo-oj7sc He's appointed 72% of voting cardinals.

[@gateman-hg8bo]

Vat2 got in front of this Church mess unlike other councils:- (playing catch up football.) We need to look at the documents in that light......

[@crushtheserpent]

Your title is dishonest and misleading. He never said the Synod “is just absurd”. Having those words in quotes next to his name suggests that he did. Not cool putting words in his mouth like that.

[@marklambert5232]

It is a direct quote and, it seems very clear to me that is what his overall impression of the proceedings was!

[@janewalton2901]

crushtheserpent I completely agree its an overly simplistic cheap shot. I didn't like the way the presenter imposed many of his own interpretations on what Barron has said.

[@crushtheserpent]

A direct quote from who? Not from Bishop Barron. If he said that please supply the source.@@marklambert5232

[@crushtheserpent]

100% agree @@janewalton2901

[@JoshBerkley530]

@@marklambert5232 see?

[@martinmartin1363]

Vatican 1 never ended due to the Italian royalty taking papal land and holding the pope a prisoner in the Vatican, times were simpler technology was slow and the church always had time to adapt, fast forward to Vatican 2 , famines wars etc, the common man was still illiterate and didn’t understand the Latin and neither did most clergy they rattled through it quickly, Catholics had become pagan and being Catholic was superstition and Catholics held many superstitions , the church and pope John 23rd saw a need for a change and Vatican 2 was held, but new order was leaked to the public without any understanding of Vatican 2 due to modern media and technology, and so when the new order was introduced the faithful hated it, and so everything at Vatican 2 was not implemented in the new order, just read the Vatican 2 translations by Father Austin flannery. Bishops in Holland and Germany and America started making changes to the new order, and we know how that turned out and so the spirit of Vatican 2 has become constant change rather than just change, the new order was supposed to have Latin and Gregorian chant and the vernacular in the readings and gospels, it would have engaged all faithful Catholics, but we are stuck with a new order lacking a link to tradition, the smoke of Satan entered the church and clergy and threw away all traditions, and this is the problem, the new order doesn’t engage the faithful, and Catholic education doesn’t exist and now Catholics get baptised receive the Eucharist and never enter a church again apart from funerals and wedding, because they are superstitions and bring good luck like other superstitions.

[@gtaylor178]

"Catholics held many superstitions"? Where do you get your silly ideas from? How we laughed.

[@martinmartin1363]

@@gtaylor178 Look to church history even cardinal Ratzinger wrote a book before Vatican 2 titled the new pagans and the church

[@martinmartin1363]

@@gtaylor178 The New Pagans and the Church A 1958 Lecture by Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI). Translated by Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J. According to religious statistics, old Europe is still a part of the earth that is almost completely Christian. But there is hardly another case in which everyone knows as well as they do here that the statistic is false: This so-called Christian Europe for almost four hundred years has become the birthplace of a new paganism, which is growing steadily in the heart of the Church, and threatens to undermine her from within. The outward shape of the modern Church is determined essentially by the fact that, in a totally new way, she has become the Church of pagans, and is constantly becoming even more so. She is no longer, as she once was, a Church composed of pagans who have become Christians, but a Church of pagans, who still call themselves Christians, but actually have become pagans. Paganism resides today in the Church herself, and precisely that is the characteristic of the Church of our day, and that of the new paganism, so that it is a matter of a paganism in the Church, and of a Church in whose heart paganism is living. Therefore, in this connection, one should not speak about the paganism, which in eastern atheism has already become a strong enemy against the Church, and as a new anti-christian power opposes the community of believers. Yet, when concerning this movement, one should not forget that it has its peculiarity in the fact that it is a new paganism, and therefore, a paganism that was born in the Church, and has borrowed from her the essential elements that definitely determine its outward form and its power. One should speak rather about the much more characteristic phenomenon of our time, which determines the real attack against the Christian, from the paganism within the Church herself, from the “desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be” (Mk 13:14). The fact that today, even given an optimistic evaluation, certainly more than half of the Catholics (here we are considering only our Church) no longer “practice” their faith, should not be explained clearly in the sense that this large number of non-practicing Catholics should simply be called pagans. It is still evident that they no longer simply embrace the faith of the Church, but that they make a very subjective choice from the creed of the Church in order to shape their own world view. And there can be no doubt that most of them, from the Christian point of view, should really no longer be called believers, but that they follow, more or less, a secular philosophy. They do indeed affirm the moral responsibility of man, but it is based on, and limited by, purely rational considerations. The ethics of N. Hartmanns, K. Jaspers, and M. Heidegger, for example, defend the more or less known convictions of many morally upright men, but they are in no sense Christians. The well-known little book published by the List-Verlag (a German publishing house-Editor’s note) entitled, What Do You Think About Christianity? can open the eyes of anyone, who has allowed himself to be deceived by the Christian façade of our contemporary public image, to the realization of how far and wide such purely rational and irreligious morality has spread. Therefore, the modern man today, when he meets someone else anywhere, can assume with some certainty that he has a baptismal certificate, but not that he has a Christian frame of mind. Therefore, he must presume as the normal state of affairs the lack of faith of his neighbor. This fact has two important consequences: On the one hand, it includes a fundamental change in the structure of the Church; and, on the other hand, it has produced an essential change of consciousness on the side of the still-believing Christians. These two phenomena will be clarified in greater detail in this lecture. When the Church had her beginning, it rested on the spiritual decision of the individual person to believe, on the act of conversion. If one at the beginning had hoped that a community of saints would be built here on earth out of the converts, “a Church without spot or wrinkle,” then in the midst of difficulties, one must come more and more to the realization that also the convert, the Christian, remains a sinner, and that even the greatest sins could possibly take place in the Christian community. In four hundred years of conflict with “heretics” [Cathari!] the Church has had abundant knowledge about this. But if, accordingly, the Christian was not a morally perfect person, and in this sense the community of the saints always remained imperfect, still there was a fundamental agreement according to which Christians were distinguished from non-Christians, namely, faith in the grace of God which was revealed in Christ. The Church was a community of believers, of men who had adopted a definite spiritual choice, and because of that, they distinguished themselves from all those who refused to make this choice. In the common possession of this decision, and its conviction, the true and living community of the faithful was founded, and also its certainty; and because of this, as the community of those in the state of grace, they knew that they were separated from those who closed themselves off from grace. Already in the Middle Ages, this was changed by the fact that the Church and the world were identical, and so to be a Christian fundamentally no longer meant that a person made his own decision about the faith, but it was already a political-cultural presupposition. A man contented himself with the thought that God had chosen this part of the world for himself; the Christian’s self-consciousness was at the same time a political-cultural awareness of being among the elect: God had chosen this Western world. Today, this outward identity of Church and world has remained; but the conviction that in this, that is, in the unchosen belonging to the Church, also that a certain divine favor, a heavenly redemption lies hidden, has disappeared. The Church is like the world, a datum of our specifically Western existence, and indeed, like the definite world to which we belong, a very contingent reality. Almost no one believes seriously that eternal salvation can depend on this very contingent, cultural and political reality that we call the “Church.” For the Westerner, the Church is, for the most part, nothing more than a very accidental part of the world; through her externally remaining identity with the world, she has lost the seriousness of her claim. So it is understandable that, today, often the question will be asked very urgently whether or not the Church should again be turned into a community of conviction, in order to confer on her again her great gravity. That would mean that she rigidly abandons the still present worldly positions, in order to get rid of an apparent possession, which shows itself to be more and more dangerous, because it stands in the way of the truth.

[@martinmartin1363]

@@gtaylor178 For some time now, this question has been eagerly discussed especially in France, where the decline of a Christian conviction has progressed more than it has among us, and so the contrast between appearance and reality is felt to be much stronger. But naturally the problem is the same among us. There, the supporters of a more strict direction stand in opposition to those of a more accommodating position. The former emphasize the necessity of, once again, giving their full weight to the Sacraments, “unless one wants to fall further into the de-Christianization of Europe. It is no longer possible to continue to give the Sacraments to the persons who want to receive them only on the basis of social convention, and thoughtless tradition, and for whom the Sacraments are only empty rituals.”1 Opposed to that, the supporters of a more accommodating position emphasize that one should not extinguish the glowing wick, that the request for the Sacraments [e.g., Matrimony, Baptism, Confirmation or First Communion; Burial of the Dead!] manifests even now a certain connection with the Church; one should not refuse these things to anyone, unless one wants to risk a damage that would be very hard to repair. The supporters of the strict direction show themselves here as attorneys for the community, while those of the accommodating approach come forth as advocates for the individual: they claim that the individual has a right to the Sacraments. In contrast, the supporters of the strict direction raise this objection: “If we want to bring the country back to Christianity, then it will happen only through the witness of small, zealous communities. In many places, it is probably necessary to begin all over again. Is it bad if a few individuals are rejected, but the future will be saved? Are we not a missionary country? Accordingly, why do we not use missionary methods? Now these require, first of all, strong communities, who then show themselves capable of receiving individual members.”2 Finally, this discussion became so vehement that the French episcopate saw that it was necessary to intervene. So on April 3, 1951, they published a “Directory for the Administration of the Sacraments,” that in general takes a middle position. For example, with regard to Baptism, it determines that fundamentally it should be conferred on the children of non-practicing parents, if they ask for it. So it is not right simply to consider the parents to be apostates; their request for Baptism allows one at least to assume that they still have a certain kernel of religious conviction. “If, however, the prior children have not been raised in a Christian way, one can only confer Baptism, if the obligation is accepted at the proper time to send the child to be baptized to the catechism classes, and also the older children, inasmuch as this is possible.”3 Some dioceses require a written commitment, and there is a special form for this.4 The Directory then says in particular: “Nuns, and members of Catholic Action, should be notified that they should not, in order to confer such Baptisms in all circumstances, exercise excessive pressure, which could give the impression of a lack of propriety.”5 This one example of Baptism shows that the Directory, in general, takes a very compassionate, or rather, a mild approach. Especially, it refuses to declare that non-practicing Catholics are simply apostates, and that means in praxis: they are not considered to be pagans, and they prefer, on the contrary, to pass judgment on each individual case. However, this approach is not essentially different from what is still commonly done in our country. The Directory puts in the place of a pure sacramentalism, once again, an attitude of faith. Among us, one still encounters-and not only among nuns-the attitude that it would be a good thing if someone with finesse and cunning brings it about that the water of Baptism can be poured over a child. One cannot rest until the identity of “Church” and “world” is complete. In doing this, a person not only gives away the Sacraments, but he also cheapens them, and makes them worthless. The Directory expresses very clearly that the situation is completely different: Certainly in the Sacraments, God offers his salvation to all mankind; certainly he invites all generously to come to his banquet, and the Church has the task of handing on this invitation, this open gesture of offering a place at God’s table; but the fact still remains that God does not need man, but man needs God. Men are not doing a favor for the Church, or the pastor, when they still receive the Sacraments, but the Sacrament is the favor which God confers on men. Therefore, it is not a matter of making the Sacraments difficult or easy to receive, but it has to do with having the conviction according to which a man knows and receives the grace of the Sacraments as a grace. This primacy of conviction, of faith in place of mere sacramentalism, is the very important teaching that stands behind the reasonable and prudent determinations of the French Directory. In the long run, the Church cannot avoid the need to get rid of, part by part, the appearance of her identity with the world, and once again to become what she is: the community of the faithful. Actually, her missionary power can only increase through such external losses. Only when she ceases to be a cheap, foregone conclusion, only when she begins again to show herself as she really is, will she be able to reach the ear of the new pagans with her good news, since until now they have been subject to the illusion that they were not real pagans. Certainly such a withdrawal of external positions will involve a loss of valuable advantages, which doubtless exist because of the contemporary entanglement of the Church with civil society. This has to do with a process which is going to take place either with, or without, the approval of the Church, and concerning which she must take a stand {the attempt to preserve the Middle Ages is foolish and would be not only tactically, but also factually, wrong}. Certainly, on the other hand, this process should not be forced in an improper manner, but it will be very important to maintain that spirit of prudent moderation that is found in an ideal way in the French Directory.

[@martinmartin1363]

@@gtaylor178 All in all, in this necessary process of the de-secularization of the Church, one must keep three levels fully separated: the level of the sacramental, the level of the proclamation of the faith, and the level of the personal, human relationship between the faithful and the non-faithful. On the sacramental level, which formerly was protected by the arcana, or rule, of secrecy, is the truly inner essence of the Church. It must be freed from a certain simple confusion with the world, which gives either the impression of something magical, or reduces the sacraments to the level of being mere ceremonies {Baptism, First Communion, Confirmation, Matrimony, Burial}. It must, once again, become clear that Sacraments without faith are meaningless, and the Church here will have to abandon gradually and with great care, a type of activity, which ultimately includes a form of self-deception, and deception of others. In this matter, the more the Church brings about a self-limitation, the distinction of what is really Christian and, if necessary, becomes a small flock, to this extent will she be able, in a realistic way, to reach the second level, that is, to see clearly that her duty is the proclamation of the Gospel. If the Sacrament is the place where the Church distinguishes itself, and must distinguish itself from the non-church, then the word is the method and way with which she carries on the open invitation to the divine banquet. Still, here one should not forget that there are two kinds of preaching: the ordinary preaching, which is a part of the Sunday liturgy, and the missionary preaching, which can be accomplished in a course of fasting and missionary sermons. The ordinary preaching, or the word proclaimed in the liturgy, can and should be relatively short, because it should not really announce new things, because its purpose is to dig deeper into the mystery of the faith, which has already, fundamentally, been accepted and affirmed. Missionary preaching should not deal with mere attitudes and individual points, but much more fundamentally present an outline of the faith, or the essential parts of it, in a way that the modern man can understand it. But here the matter to be covered cannot be spread out as far as it should be; to the extent that people cannot be reached through the word in this way, pastoral letters and public information can and should be used as much as possible. Given these considerations, there should never be an attempt to administer a sacrament over a radio program, but it is suitable for missionary preaching.6 On the level of personal relations, finally, it would be very wrong, out of the self-limitation of the Church, which is required for her sacramental activity, to want to derive a sequestering of the faithful Christian over against his unbelieving fellow men. Naturally, among the faithful gradually something like the brotherhood of communicants should once again be established who, because of their common participation in the Lord’s Table in their private life, feel and know that they are bound together. This is so that in times of need, they can count on each other, and they know they really are a family community. This family community, which the Protestants have, and which attracts many people to them, can and should be sought, more and more, among the true receivers of the Sacraments.7 This should have no sectarian seclusion as its result, but the Catholic should be able to be a happy man among men-a fellow man where he cannot be a fellow Christian. And I mean that in his relations with his unbelieving neighbors, he must, above all, be a human being; therefore, he should not irritate them with constant preaching and attempts to convert them. In a friendly way, he will be offering him a missionary service by giving him a religious article, when he is sick to suggest the possibility of calling a priest, or even to bring a priest to see him. He should not be just a preacher, but also in a friendly and simple way, a fellow human being who cares for others. In a summary fashion as the result of this first series of thoughts, we have established this point: The Church, first of all, has undergone a structural change from a small flock to a world Church, and since the Middle Ages in the West, she has more or less been identified with the world. Today, this identity is only an appearance, which hides the true essence of the Church and the world, and to some extent hinders the Church in her necessary missionary activity. And so, either sooner or later, with or contrary to the will of the Church, according to the inner structural change, she will become externally a little flock. The Church must take into account this fact-that in the administration of the Sacraments, she proceeds more cautiously, that in her preaching, she makes a distinction between missionary preaching, and preaching to the faithful. The individual Christian will strive more earnestly for a brotherhood of Christians, and, at the same time, try to show his fellow humanity, with unbelieving fellow men around him, in a truly human and deeply Christian way. Next to this sketchy structural change of the Church, it is also necessary to note a change of consciousness among the faithful, which is a result of the fact of the increasing paganism within the Church. For the modern Christian, it has become unthinkable that Christianity, and in particular the Catholic Church, should be the only way of salvation; therefore, the absoluteness of the Church, and with that, also the strict seriousness of her missionary claim, and, in fact, all of her demands, have become really questionable. Ignatius of Loyola requires the one making the spiritual exercises, in the meditation on the Incarnation, consider how the Trinitarian God sees that all men are falling into hell.8 Francis Xavier could tell the believing Mohammedans that all their piety was useless because they, whether pious or godless, whether criminals or virtuous persons, in any event were going to hell, because they did not belong to the only Church that makes a person pleasing to God.9 Today, our humanity prevents us from holding such views. We cannot believe that the man next to us, who is an upright, charitable, and good man, will end up going to hell because he is not a practicing Catholic. The idea that all “good” men will be saved today, for the normal Christian, is just as self-evident as formerly was the conviction of the opposite. Indeed, since Bellarmine, who was one of the first to give consideration to this humanitarian desire, the theologians in many different ways have striven to explain how this saving of all “upright” persons ultimately is a salvation through the Church, but these constructions were somewhat too ingenious for them to make, and leave behind much of an impression.10 Practically, the admission remained that “good men” “go to heaven,” therefore, that one can be saved by morality alone; surely, this applies first of all, and is conceded to the unbelievers, while the faithful are constantly burdened with the strict system of Church requirements. So being somewhat confused by this, the believer asks himself: Why can those outside the Church have it so easy, when it is made so difficult for us? He begins to think and to feel that the faith is a burden, and not a grace. In any event, he still has the impression that, ultimately, there are two ways to be saved: through the merely subjectively measured morality for those outside the Church, and for Church members. And he cannot have the feeling that he has inherited the better part; in any event, his faithfulness is grievously burdened by the establishment of a way to salvation alongside that of the Church. It is obvious that the missionary zeal of the Church has suffered grievously under this internal uncertainty. I am trying, as an answer to this difficult question which troubles many Christians today, to point out in very short observations that there is only one way to salvation-namely, the way through Christ. But this rests primarily on the cooperation of two mutually opposed powers, on two, as it were, balance scales that together are only one scale, so that each balance scale, by itself alone, would be completely meaningless, and only has meaning as a part of the one scale of God.11 Indeed, this begins with the fact that God separated the people of Israel from all the other peoples of the world as the people of his choice. Should that then mean that only Israel has been chosen, and that all the other peoples have been rejected? At first it seems to appear as if this contrast of the chosen people, and the non-chosen peoples, should be considered in this static sense: as the placing next to each other of two different groups. But very soon, it becomes evident that that is not the case; for in Christ, the static placing next to each other of Jews and pagans becomes dynamic, so that now the pagans through their “not having been chosen” are changed into the chosen, but this does not mean that the choice of Israel was basically illusory, as is proved by Romans 11.

[@PhilipShawn]

Prejudices

[@zaqtutubo]

BB DID NOT SAY "THE SYNOD IS JUST ABSURD" as you implied in the way you named this video. He said: "To say that this [...advances in our scientific understanding will require a rethinking of our sexual teaching] multilayered, philosophically informed, theologically dense system is incapable of handling the subtleties of human sexuality is just absurd."

[@marklambert5232]

Obviously you didn't watch the video before commenting! I think Barron excoriates the synod in his reflection as well as Hollerich. The title here may be a bit click baity but it is a direct quote from the document which gives an over all flavour of his comments.

[@zaqtutubo]

Correct. I didn’t watch it because I had read BB statement before, which is all what I need. What you and others want to make of what the Bishop says is inconsequential at best. BB does not “excoriates” the synod, he only expresses disagreement with one area of four that he describes in his statement.

[@sergesiweck1825]

what night of the long nifes?? do you want the us to have royals??

[@marysisak2359]

I only clicked on this to make two comments about Barron. First of all, a little late aren't you? Aren't you the one who said in an interview with Ben Shapiro that Jesus was the "preferred" way to salvation and in another interview said we have good hope that everyone would go to heaven? Unfortunately for you youtube has a long memory. You criticizing the synod is a little like the pot calling the kettle black.

[@Ericviking2019]

Supporting Schismatics are not " keeping with the faith".

[@sergesiweck1825]

yèo absolutly need royals to get your scolastks working man.

[@sergesiweck1825]

what are you scetting tne synod? you do not iven have royals any more. do you support the leninist way?

[@dowens1341]

Leviticus 18:22-25 states clearly same sex and bestiality is forbidden and we will be punished.